What's Your Carbon Footprint?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    About 4,000,000,000,000 kg/sec!



    I'm also a Trillionaire, because you see, I'm the guy AG, et. al. buy their carbon offsets from!
  • Reply 22 of 42
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post






    Bet lots of Americans will do the same.



    I'm American, living in Japan, but my wife and I both have to drive alot because of our work, so our combined footprint came to 11,000.



    It is scary how much the cars produce.



    See my answer...it's actually around 8,400. But really, I just love when people like you post your view of "most stupid 'merikans." Most people realize there isn't a ton they can do anyway. Others think the whole thing is a load of crap to begin with. And it is.
  • Reply 23 of 42
    ootlinkootlink Posts: 41member
    We should sell carbon offsets!
  • Reply 24 of 42
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I went through and filled it all out and then I realized: "Carbon Footprint" and all associated industries to help you offset it is an enourmous lie and waste of time. Just watch, in 20 years we'll be talking about Global Cooling again.



    but we are only supposed to last another 10.....by then it will be toooooo late.



    i have no

    carbon footprint



    overweight footprint



    badbreath footprint



    light footprint



    bad personality footprint



    flatulence footprint



    because i contacted al gore and bought offsets so i can live in peace



    to complete the offsets i have some extra so i contacted netjet for my next vacation to a

    incandescent bulb free zone



    another absurd joke on capitalism and guilt creating mongering.....you are right we will laugh at ourselves, but in the meantime those that believe in this will want to tax us silly for the right to live the absurdity...nothing more than a reason to tax
  • Reply 25 of 42
    Or we all might be buying extra sun screen.





    Let's try not listenig to the scientists, keep pumping out globs and globs of stuff while focusing on our own selfish current lives and, if there is a problem in 50 years, most of us won't be around to have to deal with it so it will be OK.



    As I have asked time and again, is this one we want to risk being wrong on?



    It is amazing that there are people who do not believe that humans have any impact on the environment.











    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution



    Anybody wanna go swimming here:?









    Acid rain, anybody?







    Look at the bird photos on this page, their stomaches are filled with plastic.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...overstory.html



    Minimata disease in Japan killed fish, maimed humans. At one of his recent appearances, I met the doctor in charge of the investigation that is still running, and he cannot believe that people live in little cocoons not believing that humans can cause a serious impact on their environment; he has had to deal with the dying patients first hand.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease



    "Despite this, from September 1958, instead of discharging its waste into Hyakken Harbour (the focus of investigation and source of original contamination), it discharged wastewater directly into Minamata River. The immediate effect was the death of fish at the mouth of the river, and from that point on new Minamata disease victims began to appear in other fishing villages up and down the coast of the Shiranui Sea, as the pollution spread over an even greater area.[12]"







    These are just some very obvious examples of how man is impacting nature.



    So, while there may not be that much blatant evidence right now for global warming (ie, no waves lapping up against the WH), do we want to ignore the possibility?
  • Reply 26 of 42
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    SDW:



    The "global cooling" phenomenon was the result of one man who published one book. The foreward to his book was written by a scientist who expressed great skepticism of the theory in the book itself.



    You are quite happy to find yourself at the tail end of just about every intellectual move forward, aren't you?
  • Reply 27 of 42
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,012member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Or we all might be buying extra sun screen.





    Let's try not listenig to the scientists, keep pumping out globs and globs of stuff while focusing on our own selfish current lives and, if there is a problem in 50 years, most of us won't be around to have to deal with it so it will be OK.



    As I have asked time and again, is this one we want to risk being wrong on?



    It is amazing that there are people who do not believe that humans have any impact on the environment.











    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution



    Anybody wanna go swimming here:?









    Acid rain, anybody?







    Look at the bird photos on this page, their stomaches are filled with plastic.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...overstory.html



    Minimata disease in Japan killed fish, maimed humans. At one of his recent appearances, I met the doctor in charge of the investigation that is still running, and he cannot believe that people live in little cocoons not believing that humans can cause a serious impact on their environment; he has had to deal with the dying patients first hand.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease



    "Despite this, from September 1958, instead of discharging its waste into Hyakken Harbour (the focus of investigation and source of original contamination), it discharged wastewater directly into Minamata River. The immediate effect was the death of fish at the mouth of the river, and from that point on new Minamata disease victims began to appear in other fishing villages up and down the coast of the Shiranui Sea, as the pollution spread over an even greater area.[12]"







    These are just some very obvious examples of how man is impacting nature.



    So, while there may not be that much blatant evidence right now for global warming (ie, no waves lapping up against the WH), do we want to ignore the possibility?



    Biggest. Strawman. Ever.



    No one is advocating trashing the environment and partying like it's 1999. Seriously. What someone like me, for example, is saying is that we should of course reduce pollution and harmful emissions and be good stewards of the environment. We need to break our addiction first to Middle East Oil and then to oil, period. I'm all for this. Let's spend more on alternative fuels and nuclear power and what not. Sign me up. Totally.



    But I still don't think we're responsible for global warming, if it even exists at all. There are a number of facts that support my position, though I realize someone like you...who has bought into the GW hysteria hook, line and sinker, is not going to change his mind.



    I also think the idea of carbon footprint is stupid. The fact is that we have limited choices as consumers (that aren't going to cost us a lot of money we don't have). Either that, or those choices aren't going to make any difference in the environment whatsoever. I mean really..does anyone other than Sheryl Crow believe that using less toilet paper is going to save the planet. It's positively stupid. Does anyone think that saving a few pennies using flourescant bulbs is going to help? No, of course not. The solutions need to be widespread, like "vastly reduce gasoline use." Consumers also need real choices. Don't tell me I have to drive a goddamned Prius (The Leading Cause of "Smug!"). Show me a vehicle that operates the same as the one I have now and is as convienient to fill and doesn't cost me an arm and a leg. That might make a difference.



    Finally, I also take issue with the unmitigated rank hypocrisy of 'Celebrity Team Global Warming." Virtually every high level politician and celebrity preaching to us about global warming and conservation is a fucking hypocrite. Everyone knows that buying carbon offsets is crap. It's not going to reduce overall consumption...at least it hasn't yet. The only thing it does is allow celebrities to purchase "Get Out of Hypocrisy Free Cards." It also makes 20-something Honda Element driving yellow/blue glasses wearing tale-end of generation X hipsters feel better about themselves and their pathetically easy sacrifice-free whitebread lives. Once upon a time, people had to worry about putting food on the table and genuinely cared about things in their lives. With disposable incomes, a stable economy and lucrative jobs right out of their private liberal arts schools under their belts, these guilt-a-razzis need some cause, any cause to validate them. Save the planet! Go green! Make a difference!
  • Reply 28 of 42
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Total Primary: 3925

    Total Secondary: 5950

    Total Overall: 9875



    I selected the renewable box because, when I lived in Florida, I was powered by a clean, nuclear plant.



    So, my question now is: when is that dipshit Al Gore going to start paying me for having such a small footprint?
  • Reply 29 of 42
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    Sadly, nuclear is not the way to go if we are to protect the environment. Solid waste from a reactor needs reprossing and some needs storage... for 10 thousand years.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Solid_waste



    Mining for uranium is also often done in open pit mines; we all know how nice they look.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Mining



    Doesn't sound like a good route to take.



    Then there are events such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. They weren't much fun.





    I think we should look elsewhere.
  • Reply 30 of 42
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    Wave power seems interesting. Saw a program on Discovery Channel a couple of weeks ago that showed two unique methods of capturing wave energy: a sea snake and a wind turbine.



    The sea snake is almost like a train floating on the sea that produces electricity through hydrolics when the units move at angles in relation to each other.



    http://www.oceanpd.com/Pelamis/default.html





    Power Buoys

    http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/index.htm



    The wind turbine is a fascinating idea that uses wave power to create an air flow of great force to a wind turbine. Costs are low because most of the equipment never touches the water.

    http://www.wavegen.co.uk/pdf/LIMPET%...e%20report.pdf



    That and other ideas:

    http://www.bwea.com/marine/devices.html
  • Reply 31 of 42
    franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Wave power seems interesting. Saw a program on Discovery Channel a couple of weeks ago that showed two unique methods of capturing wave energy: a sea snake and a wind turbine.



    The sea snake is almost like a train floating on the sea that produces electricity through hydrolics when the units move at angles in relation to each other.



    http://www.oceanpd.com/Pelamis/default.html





    Power Buoys

    http://www.oceanpowertechnologies.com/index.htm



    The wind turbine is a fascinating idea that uses wave power to create an air flow of great force to a wind turbine. Costs are low because most of the equipment never touches the water.

    http://www.wavegen.co.uk/pdf/LIMPET%...e%20report.pdf



    That and other ideas:

    http://www.bwea.com/marine/devices.html



    I don't know where you are going with the wave power angle.



    Waves by there nature are wind driven, highly directional, highly variable, and the structures necessary to resist wave forcing are, to say the least very expensive!



    Deep water (oil rigs cost several billions each just to resist the deep water wave climates) or nearshore? If nearshore, then you cut off at least half of all possible wave angles (e. g. incident wave energy) for parallel coastlines!



    Ocean (corrosion) or fresh water (limited fetch)?



    Transmission (for example Northern Atlantic and Northern Pacific coasts are the only areas of the US that even begin to have the minimum wave climates needed to even to begin to think about this type of energy extraction) and energy storage costs?



    Seriously, you won't consider the nuclear option? If so, then don't come to the energy alternatives table, if you are even half serious about humankind's doomedness!



    And you can have all the optimism in the world, all the touchy-feely good times, thinking you are doing your part to save Planet Earth. But are you? Are you really making a substantive difference, or are you just "Pissing in the wind?"



    I'll only believe it when CO2 in the atmosphere starts to flatline or even increase at a decreasing rate. So far CO2 is increasing at an increasing rate!



    BTW, I happen to work for the US Army ERDC Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL), and have dealt with nearshore coastal structures for ~ 25 years now!
  • Reply 32 of 42
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    I dunno what my carbon footprint is, but my carbon feet are killing me!
  • Reply 33 of 42
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Sadly, nuclear is not the way to go if we are to protect the environment. Solid waste from a reactor needs reprossing and some needs storage... for 10 thousand years.



    . . .



    Then there are events such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. They weren't much fun.



    In less than 200 hundred years, I have no doubt that we'll be able to cheaply fling all of our built-up toxic waste into our sun or another nearby star. All "green" energy sources require some manipulation of the environment. Building solar cells requires the use of some exotic chemicals, Wind power and hydro disrupt natural wind and water currents, etc. Nuclear has some impact too, but it produces a huge volume of energy, and I'd argue that the amount of long term impact on the environment is minimal when considering the amount of power output.



    . . .



    Three Mile Island was entirely contained. As far as I know, no western nuclear plant has ever produced an ecological incident. Consider also that France's grape crop seems to be doing just fine despite the country's nearly exclusive use of nuclear power.



    Lastly, green energy sources simply do no provide the levels of power required to push our civilization to the next stage. Personally, I think they are great when used at the local level or as secondary generation, but it's ridiculous to think that a science-minded society could move on without something as robust as a nuclear power backbone.
  • Reply 34 of 42
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    Wow, frank, you really impressed me with your deep understanding and level thinking and presentation. Did you even bother looking at the links I provided, or do you know more about this than the Danish, the Scots, and English and lots of other people who are already building these facilities and investigating the possibilities and working on the difficulties, and thus dismiss it from the beginning?



    If you really work for the Army, then you really work for me and my family, so we would ask you to fully investigate the possibilities with an open mind, examining along the way the European efforts and not preventing anyone from attending your table of intelligensia due to their opinions.



    If nothing is done, then you won't see the reduction you are looking for, so I guess you'll never believe.
  • Reply 35 of 42
    A more important question would be how many pounds of poo does each person expell each year.
  • Reply 36 of 42
    100mph100mph Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThinkingDifferent View Post


    A more important question would be how many pounds of poo does each person expell each year.



    Living up to your screen name?
  • Reply 37 of 42
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Wow, frank . . .



    It sounds like he's an army scientist, and he made some good points that weren't at all hostile. I'm not sure why you took it so personally. Needless to say, Frank makes a good point: you can't come to the alternative energy discussion table without considering the nuclear option. We're all considering "green" power sources these days, but it takes a lot of waves to equal a few grams of Uranium, or even less Plutonium. Increasing our usage of nuclear power would indeed decrease the level of man-made CO2 emissions. In fact, possibly moreso than using wind, waves, or solar, since fewer pieces of complex equipment need to be built to produce the same amount of power.



    Moreover, don't you live in Japan? Do you pay American taxes? If not, I don't see how Frank would be working for you.
  • Reply 38 of 42
    100mph100mph Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Biggest. Strawman. Ever.



    No one is advocating trashing the environment and partying like it's 1999. Seriously. What someone like me, for example, is saying is that we should of course reduce pollution and harmful emissions and be good stewards of the environment. We need to break our addiction first to Middle East Oil and then to oil, period. I'm all for this. Let's spend more on alternative fuels and nuclear power and what not. Sign me up. Totally.



    But I still don't think we're responsible for global warming, if it even exists at all. There are a number of facts that support my position, though I realize someone like you...who has bought into the GW hysteria hook, line and sinker, is not going to change his mind.



    I also think the idea of carbon footprint is stupid. The fact is that we have limited choices as consumers (that aren't going to cost us a lot of money we don't have). Either that, or those choices aren't going to make any difference in the environment whatsoever. I mean really..does anyone other than Sheryl Crow believe that using less toilet paper is going to save the planet. It's positively stupid. Does anyone think that saving a few pennies using flourescant bulbs is going to help? No, of course not. The solutions need to be widespread, like "vastly reduce gasoline use." Consumers also need real choices. Don't tell me I have to drive a goddamned Prius (The Leading Cause of "Smug!"). Show me a vehicle that operates the same as the one I have now and is as convienient to fill and doesn't cost me an arm and a leg. That might make a difference.



    Finally, I also take issue with the unmitigated rank hypocrisy of 'Celebrity Team Global Warming." Virtually every high level politician and celebrity preaching to us about global warming and conservation is a fucking hypocrite. Everyone knows that buying carbon offsets is crap. It's not going to reduce overall consumption...at least it hasn't yet. The only thing it does is allow celebrities to purchase "Get Out of Hypocrisy Free Cards." It also makes 20-something Honda Element driving yellow/blue glasses wearing tale-end of generation X hipsters feel better about themselves and their pathetically easy sacrifice-free whitebread lives. Once upon a time, people had to worry about putting food on the table and genuinely cared about things in their lives. With disposable incomes, a stable economy and lucrative jobs right out of their private liberal arts schools under their belts, these guilt-a-razzis need some cause, any cause to validate them. Save the planet! Go green! Make a difference!



    Check the link I posted at the top. They have some green coffins there.
  • Reply 39 of 42
    100mph100mph Posts: 256member
    We found a way to pollute even from graves.



    Quote:

    Currently, 89 percent of coffins sold are made of chipboard that is manufactured using formaldehyde. When chipboard coffins are cremated, they can release toxic gases. If buried, they disrupt local ecosystems; as the chipboard decays, the formaldehyde and glue leach into the soil and groundwater.



    Whatever your 4x4 didn't f/up, your coffin will poison. Congrats!







  • Reply 40 of 42
    franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Wow, frank, you really impressed me with your deep understanding and level thinking and presentation. Did you even bother looking at the links I provided, or do you know more about this than the Danish, the Scots, and English and lots of other people who are already building these facilities and investigating the possibilities and working on the difficulties, and thus dismiss it from the beginning?



    If you really work for the Army, then you really work for me and my family, so we would ask you to fully investigate the possibilities with an open mind, examining along the way the European efforts and not preventing anyone from attending your table of intelligensia due to their opinions.



    If nothing is done, then you won't see the reduction you are looking for, so I guess you'll never believe.



    Yes, as usual, EXACTLY the type of response I'd expect, SOP for you all!



    Tell me EXACTLY how much energy is produced today by wave power alone WRT all other current sources? ROTFLMAO! Never mind, I found this;



    Quote:

    The first commercial wave farm using this technology was installed in 2006 off the coast of Portugal near the city of Póvoa de Varzim. This wave farm uses three Pelamis P-750 machines with a (total peak theoretical) capacity of 2.25 megawatts (for the three machines, in total). It is likely to be expanded to eventually provide enough power for 1,500 households. The first twelve tube sections were constructed at the Arnish manufacturing site, on the Isle of Lewis by the Scottish company Ocean Power Delivery while the remaining will be constructed in Portugal.



    Funding for Scotland's first wave farm was announced by the Scottish Executive on February 22, 2007. It will be the world's largest, with a capacity of 3 MW generated by four Pelamis machines and a cost of over 4 million pounds.[1] The funding is part of a new £13 million funding package for marine power in Scotland.



    And from here we see that the average power is only ~1/10 of the peak power produced;







    So instead of 0.75 MW (peak) the average power produced is ~ 0.075 MW/unit. Now compare that output to a French reactor producing 1,455 MW/unit! And when it's in operation (uptime typically ~ 90%) it's constant 24/7, and these power plants are not limited in their location (almost anywhere on land will do just fine, TYVM!), like wave power extractors are limited to offshore locations with large wave climatologies!



    1,455/0.075 = 19,400 wave power thingies for 1 nuclear reactor! WoW, that's a LOT of wave power thingies!



    So now let's calculate the square area required for 19,400 wave power thingies with L = 125 m and an aspect ratio of 1:1 (based on their illustrations), shall we?



    The square root of 19,400 is ~ 140 or 140 columns and 140 rows, or;



    125 m * 140 = 17.5 km in length AND width, or ~ 306 sq. km!



    Now let's look at the cost of 19,400 wave power thingies, shall we?



    At 1 M pounds ~ 2 M US dollars, we get;



    $2 M * 19,400 = $38.8 B US dollars! Or at least an order of magnitude greater than conventional "cookie cutter" SOTA nuclear reactor!



    And that's for a 15 year service life! And doesn't include security and maintenance costs, and many, Many, MANY mooring and transmission lines!



    And how much do they all expect to produce, in oh, say 20 years from now WRT all other future sources?



    And the cost per unit energy produced WRT all other sources?



    Of course, you mention ALL island nations located in the North Sea, duh;







    versus,







    Notice how the US main coastlines have from 1/4 to 1/2 of the potential as do those countries in the North Sea areas?



    And after going to your links, I'd estimate energy extraction of < 1% (but probably much less for the wave power thingies power conversion efficiency) of the ocean surface covered!



    You see I've been there, done that with something called OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion) in the late 70's, it was also a promising alternative energy technology, don't hear much about OTEC now do we?



    BTW, where is the hardcore data from these "marketing" technology salesmen?



    More touchy-feely good times for AG, et. al. brought to them by the sustainable energy alternatives "medicine men!"
Sign In or Register to comment.